The turn of the twenty first century was peaceful for most
countries around the world. However, it was extremely bloody and brutal for the
small, cocoa producing Ivory Coast in Eastern Africa. After a series of coups,
disputed elections and ethnic tensions, the Ivory Coast descended into civil
war. According to David Samuels in “Comparative Politics”, civil war is defined
as “armed combat within the boundaries of a…state between parties that are
subject to common authority at the start of hostilities” (259). While this is a
fairly comprehensive definition, it doesn’t perfectly describe the civil war
that happened in the Ivory Coast, but
it describes it better than that of a revolution.
The first reason is that the Ivorian civil war was primarily between the government and angry citizens. If the case of the Ivory Coast was to fully fit the definition’s criteria, it would not have involved the government, since they were subject to no one, while their citizens were subject to them. Another factor that changes the application of this definition is that the Ivorian Civil War also involved heavy French influence from the beginning. The French soldiers, not subject to the same authority as citizens of the Ivory Coast, fought and died alongside the Ivorian government, according to “”Ivory Coast: Conflict Profile” published on Insightonconflict.org.
Samuels goes on to discuss several theories behind civil war that may apply to the Ivorian civil war, however. The most explanatory is “cultural polarization”, which supposes that polarized ethnically or culturally different groups help lead to Civil War. And indeed, this may be the case for the Ivory Coast. According to Newsandletters.org, the heavy Muslim population to the north conflicted with the southern African tribes in their first ‘real’ elections shortly before the conflict began (The former president of the Ivory Coast was elected for thirty years straight with aid from the French).
Because of the differences between the Ivorian civil war and the given definition, it may seem like the definition of a revolution would be a better fit. However, this is not so. According to Samuels, a revolution requires that “authority over the state [be] forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents” (268). The Ivorian civil war fits the first criteria better than it seems to fit the criteria for a civil war: “Both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population” (268.)
The Ivorian government claimed supporters in the Muslim population, who was blamed for much of the fighting, according to Newsandletters.org, and the opposing side was headed by southern citizens and the military. However, because the military was not successful in transferring power to the citizens or bringing about “wholesale political change”, it doesn’t fit these criteria as well (268). Samuels goes on to point that all revolutions are civil wars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all civil wars are revolutions (269). In the case of the Ivory Coast, their political violence was a civil war, and not a revolution. So while Samuels' definition of a civil war may not be a perfect fit, it fits much better than that of a revolution.
The first reason is that the Ivorian civil war was primarily between the government and angry citizens. If the case of the Ivory Coast was to fully fit the definition’s criteria, it would not have involved the government, since they were subject to no one, while their citizens were subject to them. Another factor that changes the application of this definition is that the Ivorian Civil War also involved heavy French influence from the beginning. The French soldiers, not subject to the same authority as citizens of the Ivory Coast, fought and died alongside the Ivorian government, according to “”Ivory Coast: Conflict Profile” published on Insightonconflict.org.
Samuels goes on to discuss several theories behind civil war that may apply to the Ivorian civil war, however. The most explanatory is “cultural polarization”, which supposes that polarized ethnically or culturally different groups help lead to Civil War. And indeed, this may be the case for the Ivory Coast. According to Newsandletters.org, the heavy Muslim population to the north conflicted with the southern African tribes in their first ‘real’ elections shortly before the conflict began (The former president of the Ivory Coast was elected for thirty years straight with aid from the French).
Because of the differences between the Ivorian civil war and the given definition, it may seem like the definition of a revolution would be a better fit. However, this is not so. According to Samuels, a revolution requires that “authority over the state [be] forcibly transferred from the state to the insurgents” (268). The Ivorian civil war fits the first criteria better than it seems to fit the criteria for a civil war: “Both the insurgents and the state claim the allegiance of a significant proportion of the population” (268.)
The Ivorian government claimed supporters in the Muslim population, who was blamed for much of the fighting, according to Newsandletters.org, and the opposing side was headed by southern citizens and the military. However, because the military was not successful in transferring power to the citizens or bringing about “wholesale political change”, it doesn’t fit these criteria as well (268). Samuels goes on to point that all revolutions are civil wars, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all civil wars are revolutions (269). In the case of the Ivory Coast, their political violence was a civil war, and not a revolution. So while Samuels' definition of a civil war may not be a perfect fit, it fits much better than that of a revolution.
Works Cited
"Insight on Conflict." Insight on Conflict.
N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.insightonconflict.org/conflicts/ivory-coast/conflict-profile/>.
"The Political, Religious and Ethnic Conflict in Ivory
Coast." The Political, Religious and Ethnic Conflict in Ivory
Coast. N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.newsandletters.org/issues/2002/december/Ivory_Dec02.htm>.
Samuels, David J. Comparative Politics. Boston, MA:
Pearson Education, 2013. Print.
You did a great job using the definition and applying it to this case study.
ReplyDeleteWay to attempt picking apart the books definition when applying it to your country.
ReplyDeleteYou're argument was very through. I liked the way your were very detailed in using our textbook as a reference. Good job!
ReplyDeleteGreat job with this blog. I thought your thesis was clear and you backed up your claims really well with the example of the Ivory Coast civil war.
ReplyDelete